Freedom of the Press Foundation is a one-stop shop for transparency donations.

A new coalition of transparency advocates have come together to provide a new way for donors to give money to WikiLeaks and like-minded groups using traditional methods, including credit cards, PayPal and others. The move is the latest way WikiLeaks has been poking holes in its financial blockade.

The newly-minted Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) acts essentially as a shielded middleman for getting money to WikiLeaks, MuckRock, the National Security Archive, and more. On Monday, the group said on Twitter that after more than 24 hours of being up, it received $35,000 in donations.

“What this means is that on people's credit card bills, it will say Freedom of the Press Foundation,” said Micah Lee, the group’s chief technology officer, during a Monday conference call with reporters. “PayPal won't know how much of that goes to WikiLeaks or anyone else.”

While donating to WikiLeaks is certainly the headline act here, some see it as a way to get more attention to similar organizations.

“While it's getting a lot of attention for the WikiLeaks aspect, I think it could be huge for small indy organizations in the future,” Jillian York, the director for International Freedom of Expression at the EFF, told Ars.

“I know that they're eventually planning to reach out to international organizations too, many of which are prohibited from sites like Kickstarter. Ultimately, I think what's great about this is the mechanism, though—a user might go to the site initially because they want to give to WikiLeaks but end up contributing to a smaller, lesser known organization, which could make all the difference.”

What do John Cusack and Xeni Jardin have in common?

When someone donates via the FPF website, the group provides a slide-style interface for donors to choose how much cash to give to any of its target groups. The FPF takes eight percent of each donation to pay back its own costs.

By acting as an umbrella organization for all the groups, the FPF hopes to increase ease-of-use and privacy for donors, and make it easier for groups like WikiLeaks to bypass being hit with a financial blockade.

“When you donate, we will store the amount of your donation, the distribution of organizations you wish to send money to, and your payment processor's transaction ID,” the group says in its privacy policy. “We won't associate this donation with your identity in our database; however it could possibly be tracked back to you through your payment processor.”

The FPF has a number of free speech luminaries on its board, including Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s), Glenn Greenwald (an attorney and journalist), John Cusack (yes, the actor!), John Perry Barlow (who co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation), Xeni Jardin (a journalist and co-founder of Boing Boing), and others.

“We started with the idea that WikiLeaks is not only a legitimate journalistic enterprise, but an essential one,” Ellsberg said on the same conference call. “We don't want to see it go down under government pressure. It's now an indispensable part of journalism.”

interesting that they are skimming 8% off the top. What i wonder is how this is any different from shell groups used by groups like hamas and al qeda to raise funds in the west (holy land fund, CAIR etc). If those can get audited and shut down, what seems to make them think that this won't?

"What this means is that on people's credit card bills, it will say Freedom of the Press Foundation,” said Micah Lee, the group’s chief technology officer. “PayPal won't know how much of that goes to WikiLeaks or anyone else.”

And now that they have announced their existence, PayPal will simply shut down their account. Seriously, do you really believe that won't happen?

Fantastic to see people working to get around major financial institutions' US-forced financial blockade of Wikileaks. I am amused to note that those sliders look like the kind used by Indiegala, Groupees, and various other game-bundling/charity-contributing websites.

@anurodhp - "skimming" 8% is basically saying "we have operating costs". Are you suggesting they shouldn't be able to recover operating costs?

Fantastic to see people working to get around major financial institutions' US-forced financial blockade of Wikileaks. I am amused to note that those sliders look like the kind used by Indiegala, Groupees, and various other game-bundling/charity-contributing websites.

@anurodhp - "skimming" 8% is basically saying "we have operating costs". Are you suggesting they shouldn't be able to recover operating costs?

Fantastic to see people working to get around major financial institutions' US-forced financial blockade of Wikileaks. I am amused to note that those sliders look like the kind used by Indiegala, Groupees, and various other game-bundling/charity-contributing websites.

@anurodhp - "skimming" 8% is basically saying "we have operating costs". Are you suggesting they shouldn't be able to recover operating costs?

I fully support the intentions and wish them luck. However, when push comes to shove, I do not see how this public proxy is any safer. Remember, Wikileaks had been using US services for a long time--AWS hosting, Mastercard, VISA, Paypal--until the government simply said "stop that".

Not only are Mastercard, VISA, and Paypal vulnerable to government action, they are also very sensitive to public perception. Paypal is infamous among those who know, for freezing, suspending accounts over objectionable content. So even without overt government pressure, this proxy is still vulnerable to accusations of putting national security at risk or "you're funding terrorists!"

What would be helpful is to have a backend payment system that did not rely on the mainstream providers. There is Dwolla, but they are still in the US. There is of course Bitcoin, and bunch of alternative money exchangers and non-US payment providers.

<snip>.....So even without overt government pressure, this proxy is still vulnerable to accusations of putting national security at risk or "you're funding terrorists!" <snip>

Former president George W. Bush said something to the effect that if you aren't with the (efforts of) Government, you are with the "Terrorists". That's a pretty damning statement if you happen to believe the War on Terror is something of a public-relations campaign.

So if you support the moral outrage that surrounds Julian and put your money where resides your mouth you are guilty of Terrorism? Since is when the pursuit of justice "Terrorism"?

And justice is not free. Everybody and everything that promotes justice and liberty needs to be supported because without support, all effort is futile.

"What this means is that on people's credit card bills, it will say Freedom of the Press Foundation,” said Micah Lee, the group’s chief technology officer. “PayPal won't know how much of that goes to WikiLeaks or anyone else.”

And now that they have announced their existence, PayPal will simply shut down their account. Seriously, do you really believe that won't happen?

That's what I thought initially. Because it's obfuscating the source and destination of donations, it looks like a (poor) technical workaround. But, it's an attempt to subvert the blockade politically. It's the same diversity-of-use argument you see with The Tor Project. You might not like Wikileaks, but you might like many of the other potential recipients.

Why isn't there an open and full disclosure of donations and history to study before donating to any such cause online, easily linked from the donation pages? Even better, assign a number to each donation, and publish a full list of numbers and amounts so we can verify that our specific donation was recorded, and not diverted for someone else's personal use. It wouldn't have to be fancy, just a long list of numbers and amounts would do.

This would seem especially important for bitcoin donations, since otherwise donations could be diverted for personal use without a trace.

"What this means is that on people's credit card bills, it will say Freedom of the Press Foundation,” said Micah Lee, the group’s chief technology officer. “PayPal won't know how much of that goes to WikiLeaks or anyone else.”

And now that they have announced their existence, PayPal will simply shut down their account. Seriously, do you really believe that won't happen?

interesting that they are skimming 8% off the top. What i wonder is how this is any different from shell groups used by groups like hamas and al qeda to raise funds in the west (holy land fund, CAIR etc). If those can get audited and shut down, what seems to make them think that this won't?

Moreover, this FPF is also now a one-stop shop for anyone who wants a list of financial backers for "undesirable" sites... Credit cards score points for accessibility but it isn't inconceivable that someone not very keen on Wikileaks and similar organizations could break into the FPF's systems and steal a handy list.

Also, where's the proof the money is going where they say it is? Providing anonymity of donation amounts would naturally obscure accountability, no? Regardless of the good intentions of the groups backing this business.

Fantastic to see people working to get around major financial institutions' US-forced financial blockade of Wikileaks. I am amused to note that those sliders look like the kind used by Indiegala, Groupees, and various other game-bundling/charity-contributing websites.

@anurodhp - "skimming" 8% is basically saying "we have operating costs". Are you suggesting they shouldn't be able to recover operating costs?

they seem to claim they are just a forwarding service.

Servers, credit card processing, and employees all cost money.

I'm continually baffled by people who think businesses literally run themselves once the infrastructure is set up.

8% of $1 million is only $80K. That's not even enough to pay one person for a year, let alone keep the lights on, and pay the payment processors. I wouldn't be surprised if they need to bring in $5 million in donations annually just to keep running. That's $400K, which is enough to pay two technology people salary and benefits, and keep the lights on in terms of hardware infrastructure.

"What this means is that on people's credit card bills, it will say Freedom of the Press Foundation,” said Micah Lee, the group’s chief technology officer. “PayPal won't know how much of that goes to WikiLeaks or anyone else.”

And now that they have announced their existence, PayPal will simply shut down their account. Seriously, do you really believe that won't happen?

Would PayPal really want the publicity of being the group that blocks donations to something called "Freedom of the Press Foundation"? Too many people don't understand WikiLeaks, so they're okay believing that PayPal isn't doing anything wrong already. But who wants to be famous for being anti-freedom and anti-press?

I fully support the intentions and wish them luck. However, when push comes to shove, I do not see how this public proxy is any safer. Remember, Wikileaks had been using US services for a long time--AWS hosting, Mastercard, VISA, Paypal--until the government simply said "stop that".

Not only are Mastercard, VISA, and Paypal vulnerable to government action, they are also very sensitive to public perception. Paypal is infamous among those who know, for freezing, suspending accounts over objectionable content. So even without overt government pressure, this proxy is still vulnerable to accusations of putting national security at risk or "you're funding terrorists!"

What would be helpful is to have a backend payment system that did not rely on the mainstream providers. There is Dwolla, but they are still in the US. There is of course Bitcoin, and bunch of alternative money exchangers and non-US payment providers.

I'd personally like to see this proof of the US govt forcing these organizations to do anything. Let's remember that the first major processor to block payments was BofA because Wikileaks decided that they were going to leak their internal documents. Hell Wikileaks closest ally "Anonymous" had just DDoS'd Mastercard and Visa at the time.

So what makes you think that these other organizations didn't see the writing on the wall and decided they wanted nothing to do with it? If only to protect their interests not those of the government.

Dont get it. Why can't someone just donate from their bank account like paypal gets their money from? May be what we need is a bank that serves mainly as a donation shell. You deposit your money in and route it where you want. Ok, lets not call it bank. Lets call it "Green Cross"!! All it does is provide you a way to give in "cold cash". No traces, no hassles. As long it can only keep 2% in expenses at max.

Dont get it. Why can't someone just donate from their bank account like paypal gets their money from? May be what we need is a bank that serves mainly as a donation shell. You deposit your money in and route it where you want. Ok, lets not call it bank. Lets call it "Green Cross"!! All it does is provide you a way to give in "cold cash". No traces, no hassles. As long it can only keep 2% in expenses at max. Not the insane 8%.

I fully support the intentions and wish them luck. However, when push comes to shove, I do not see how this public proxy is any safer. Remember, Wikileaks had been using US services for a long time--AWS hosting, Mastercard, VISA, Paypal--until the government simply said "stop that".

Not only are Mastercard, VISA, and Paypal vulnerable to government action, they are also very sensitive to public perception. Paypal is infamous among those who know, for freezing, suspending accounts over objectionable content. So even without overt government pressure, this proxy is still vulnerable to accusations of putting national security at risk or "you're funding terrorists!"

What would be helpful is to have a backend payment system that did not rely on the mainstream providers. There is Dwolla, but they are still in the US. There is of course Bitcoin, and bunch of alternative money exchangers and non-US payment providers.

I'd personally like to see this proof of the US govt forcing these organizations to do anything. Let's remember that the first major processor to block payments was BofA because Wikileaks decided that they were going to leak their internal documents. Hell Wikileaks closest ally "Anonymous" had just DDoS'd Mastercard and Visa at the time.

So what makes you think that these other organizations didn't see the writing on the wall and decided they wanted nothing to do with it? If only to protect their interests not those of the government.

You really think Visa/Mastercard can be controlled by US govt? They are too big to be told what to do. Their only motivation is money. They probably calculated it would cost them too much to let the donations go through

Dont get it. Why can't someone just donate from their bank account like paypal gets their money from? May be what we need is a bank that serves mainly as a donation shell. You deposit your money in and route it where you want. Ok, lets not call it bank. Lets call it "Green Cross"!! All it does is provide you a way to give in "cold cash". No traces, no hassles. As long it can only keep 2% in expenses at max. Not the insane 8%.

How is 8% insane?

It may not sound like much now. But, considering these donations will start pouring in, it's more than what the Visa/Mcard charge to move money (a little above 3%?). Then again, i take it back, it's not really insane. I think it's probably how much it costs them to do this charade. Thanks for calling me out

If the FPF were audited, the list of donors could be subpoenaed. If they could not provide adequate documentation of how much money was intended and directed to the media orgs by the donors, the FPF would be vulnerable to charges of inadequate record keeping, fraud, money laundering, among others. Just one of the potential media organizations supported by the FPF needs to be corrupted or entangled in a scandal, and all FPF clients could be tarred with the same brush.

Great idea for Americans who have a few remaining domestic freedoms, but still too much of a risk for anyone who needs to cross a border into the U.S. or any other nation hostile to WL for business.

I fully support the intentions and wish them luck. However, when push comes to shove, I do not see how this public proxy is any safer. Remember, Wikileaks had been using US services for a long time--AWS hosting, Mastercard, VISA, Paypal--until the government simply said "stop that".

Not only are Mastercard, VISA, and Paypal vulnerable to government action, they are also very sensitive to public perception. Paypal is infamous among those who know, for freezing, suspending accounts over objectionable content. So even without overt government pressure, this proxy is still vulnerable to accusations of putting national security at risk or "you're funding terrorists!"

What would be helpful is to have a backend payment system that did not rely on the mainstream providers. There is Dwolla, but they are still in the US. There is of course Bitcoin, and bunch of alternative money exchangers and non-US payment providers.

I'd personally like to see this proof of the US govt forcing these organizations to do anything. Let's remember that the first major processor to block payments was BofA because Wikileaks decided that they were going to leak their internal documents. Hell Wikileaks closest ally "Anonymous" had just DDoS'd Mastercard and Visa at the time.

So what makes you think that these other organizations didn't see the writing on the wall and decided they wanted nothing to do with it? If only to protect their interests not those of the government.

You really believe every major financial institution in the U.S. did this of their own accord? Also Anonymous has nothing to do with Wikileaks. That's like blaming every country friendly towards the US for invading Iraq.

Our government has done under handed things since it was founded, what makes you think they suddenly have stopped? Cuba, Iran (Mosaddegh), Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), Iran-Contra, Iraq (WMD) .. And currently Julian Assange. I could go on and on.